Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:20:06 +0100 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> To: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Different sizes between zfs list and zpool list Message-ID: <AANLkTilN2XiX7ZsqcXIL-UfSCZtdloLkaW5r9_0RYsLV@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <l2jb269bc571005050856w86b6f13as54a8778c28dd9099@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTim-yHHl9Neeb40gD3W333foqEIcGYCY2EaorvKg@mail.gmail.com> <l2jb269bc571005050856w86b6f13as54a8778c28dd9099@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> When looking at the size of a pool, this information can be got from >> both zpool list and zfs list: >> >> > $ zfs list >> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT >> tank 5.69T 982G 36.5K /tank >> >> > $ zpool list >> NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT >> tank 8.14T 6.86T 1.28T 84% ONLINE - >> >> Why the different sizes? >> The pool is a raidz of 6 x 1.5 TB drives. >> > > zpool lists the raw storage available to the pool. Every single bit of > every single drive is listed here. This will be 6 x 1 TB. > > zfs lists only the amount of storage available to be used, after all > redundancy is taken into account. This will be 5 x 1 TB. > > -- > Freddie Cash > fjwcash@gmail.com Ah, that makes sense - also explains why the df output matches up precisely with the zfs list output. Thanks Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilN2XiX7ZsqcXIL-UfSCZtdloLkaW5r9_0RYsLV>